The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1887-09-29
TRIAL BY JURY.
It's Defects in Both Civil and Criminal
Cases.

TRIAL BY JURY.
Its Defects in Both Civil and CrlmIna
Cases.
AS a tree is known by its fruit, so al
evil Law is best exposed by rigid enforce
ment. From what / have written upor
the verdict of acquittal, the conclusion
logically follows that the miscarriage O
;. Justice in our criminal Courts, especially
in trials for high crimes, is owing te
). defects in the Law rather than to weak
ness in its administration
= Could we recall from the dead those
renowned jurists, Marshall, Story and
Taney, and place them upon our su'
preme Bench, and replace upon our Cir
cult Bench the brightest luminaries o.
the law who adorned it in days gone by
they could not SO administer our defec'
i tive laws and our weak and mongrel
system of our jurisprudence as to protect
fully the rights of the State and her law.
l;shidipg people.ysInsthe Constitution Of
1858, and the statutes enacted in pursu.
ance thereof, the inimical stranger and
the freedmen agaYe 1athe sow'a ear, ont
/, of which we are vainly striving to make
| a silk purse.
Having concluded my examination
and analysis of the verdict Of acquittal, ]
propose to say something upon trial by
1 Jury in civil as we'll asIin criminal cases.
The Constitution of1790, under which
our Courts ofjustice became 80 illustri.
ous, provided, in Article TX, Section 6,
that Trial by jury, as heretofore used in
this State, and the liberty of the press,
shall be forever inviolably preserved"
The Constitution of 1868 provides in
1 Article T, Section IL that "The right of
trial bys jury shall remain. inTiolate." /"
The Legislature cannot abridgeI this
right, but to that end an amendment to
the Constitution would be necessary.
eBut ii is,neither desirednoF desirable to
impart this great bulwark of liberty.
Writer'S may inveigh against this mode
Of trial, and cite erroneous and capricious
| yerdicts Of iuries as evidences Of its
weakness; but all free English.speaking
people will pailtain and defend trial by
jury. They will not surrender the right,
nor Buaer it ,toybe- impaired. 1t is SO
enndeared to our people and SO imbedded
in our system of Jurisprudence and inter-
woven into the fabrics of our govern
ments, State and National, that it would
be folly and madness to attempt it's
abridgement.
Il iseopen to criticism and liable to
abuse, but perhaps less SO than any mode
or trial devised by man.
But it is competent for the Legislature
to regulate the enjoyment and the e1er.
else of right and to describe the mode of
drawing, summoning and fempanelliug a
ljury to prescribeefor-sWhats ofsnces'the
accused shall be arraigned upon trial,
and how, many peremptory challenges
shall jbe allowed the accused and the
State. In establishing inferior triubn-
nails, for the trial of "causes small and
mean, oit is competent for che Isgisla.
ture 10 tx Che number Of which q jury
shall consist, and how they shall be
drawn and summoned.
This was done under the Constitution
of 1890 in the establishment of county
Courts and Courts Of magistrates and
,freeholdera. 1t has likewise been done
under our present Constitution in estab-
fishing Courts of trial justices, and in
prescribing the offences for which an
| accused shall be arraigned, and shah
have twenty peremptory challenges.
Persons accused of murder, man.
slaughter, arson. rape, burglary or grand
larceny are entitled to the incidents Of
arraignment and to peremptory challen-
ges, not exceeding twenty, and the State
| to peremptory challenges not exceeding
two. Persons accused of any other crime
are entitled to peremptory challenges not
exceeding FIVE, and the State to peremp-
tory challenges not exceeding two. ~,
From the enumerated class of felonies
in which the accused is entitled to twenty
peremptory challenges think we could
properly exclude grand larceny. I can
see no good reason for allowing the thief
who steals goods worth twenty dollars or
more twenty peremptofy challenges,
whilst to the perjurer, the forger and
other perpetrator of crimes as grave, the
law allows but five peremptory' chal.
lenges. Five challenges without cause
shown are enough to su!bserve the ends
of justice in case of grand larceny as we'll
as in cases of forgery, perjury, &c.
Such change would be perfectly fair
to the accused as well as to the State,
and would;save q great deal Of time and
expense sins dispatching tie business of
Courts of General Sessions. A large
percentage of the cases in that Court
since 1868 has been for grand larceny,
and such will continue to be the case.
The organization of the jury in each
case is now tediousprocess. :
II Another reformation loudly called fol
is The criminal Jurisdiction of the Courts
of Trial Justice. Under recent decis.
ion of our Supreme Court trial justice
has no jurisdiction in cases of petit lar
ceny. The result is, that the Courts Of
General sessions are being overwhelmed
with trials for this offence-their number
being "legion." The casue of this decis-
ion is an oversight in the Legislature,
which has, up to the present, failed to
prescribe definite punishment for this
offence, which, in each county, is daily,
almost hourly, committed. There should
J,1ou hn tba oc;o1o otnra IN or